In a striking turn of events, the far-right Freedom Party (FPO) has made history by clinching a significant win in the recent Austrian parliamentary elections. However, this victory has left the party somewhat in a lurch, balancing precariously under the scrutiny of a prominent adversary: the president, who holds the reins in guiding the search for a workable coalition government.
For the first time ever, the Eurosceptic and pro-Russia Freedom Party garnered 29% of the vote, yet this figure falls short of securing a parliamentary majority. Without a coalition ally, their ambitions to govern hang in the balance, especially as other party leaders have publicly expressed their reluctance to collaborate.
President Alexander Van der Bellen, aged 80 and previously a key figure in the left-leaning Greens, has voiced significant concerns regarding the FPO. His unease stems from the party’s reluctance to robustly denounce Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, coupled with its opposition to sanctions against Moscow. Additionally, he has hinted at his unwillingness to endorse FPO leader Herbert Kickl, aged 55, as a potential chancellor.
In a bid to bridge the gap, Mr. Kickl has expressed his readiness to engage in discussions with all other parties in Austria. Despite these overtures, Mr. Van der Bellen maintains he bears no obligation to facilitate the FPO’s transition into power, and constitutional scholars concur with this interpretation.
Recently, during an address where he encouraged parties to explore possible collaborations, Mr. Van der Bellen emphasized the need to uphold “the pillars of our liberal democracy.” He underscored the importance of the rule of law, minority rights, independent media, and Austria’s EU membership.
These points, however, are precisely what Mr. Kickl’s adversaries claim he and the FPO seek to weaken. In response, Mr. Kickl has positioned his party as the unyielding defender of Austrian sovereignty and neutrality.
Professor Kathrin Stainer-Haemmerle, a political scientist at Carinthia University of Applied Sciences, reflected on Mr. Van der Bellen’s comments, asserting that they serve as a dual-edged signal. “On one hand, it suggests that the Freedom Party should not ascend to govern. He may not want to state that explicitly…But it also implies, ‘there are certain elements I wish to see integrated into the future government blueprint.'”
At the time of writing, Mr. Van der Bellen’s office had yet to respond to inquiries about these comments, which indicated that the coalition-building process could stretch beyond the typical two to three months that Austrians have grown accustomed to.
In stark contrast, after the 2019 elections, where the ruling conservatives triumphed with a more substantial lead, Mr. Van der Bellen had indicated he would “naturally” request that the leading party attempt to forge a coalition, which he facilitated just eight days later.
This time around, however, he has refrained from offering such guidance. Instead, he pointed out that a party lacking a majority “must persuade others—potential government partners, alongside the president—if it aims to establish a government,” further highlighting his pivotal role in the negotiations.
In response, Mr. Kickl has asserted that Mr. Van der Bellen must recognize the FPO’s first-place finish in the election. “Our constitution does not operate on whims; it’s grounded in the balance of power,” he remarked.
If Mr. Kickl finds it impossible to secure a coalition partner, it could pave the way for a partnership among more moderate parties, altering the political landscape significantly.
The FPO, established in the 1950s by an ex-Nazi politician, has made concerted efforts to reshape its public image. Similar to the surge of far-right movements across various EU nations, the FPO attracted voters with promises to tighten immigration controls and address the challenges of rising living expenses.
Edited by: Ali Musa
Axadle international–Monitoring
